User talk:Bradeos Graphon

——————————————— 火星 TALK PAGE ———————————————	Please, add new entries to the bottom and don't forget to sign your name by typing four tildes: ~~~~.
坐低飲啖茶，食個包
Please, no spam.

User talk:Fire Star Archive February 2004 - February 2007

New messages below this line

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 05:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your statement

Fire Star, the organ harvesting issue is covered in a section on the Suppression of Falun Gong page; I still remember the dispute over it. Anti-FG editors inserted material showing that the Chinese government does not engage in organ harvesting (eg: a US State Department report). FGers inserted an excessive amount of material such as the following phone transcript from David Matas and David Kilgour’s report.

Mijiang City Detention Centre, Heilongjiang province (8 June 2006): M: Do you have Falun Gong [organ] suppliers? ... Mr. Li: We used to have, yes. M: … what about now? Mr. Li: … Yes.

I don’t remember what other anti-FG editors did, but I remember removing this phone transcript myself. In this dispute anti-FG editors reduced FGers’ material to about the same length of theirs. I believed FGers intentionally placing excessive amount of material to overwhelm ours and to push their POV.

Getting back to the following two statements you made:

1. I also support inclusion of well-documented material that seems critical of the Chinese govt. and its suppression of the movement (imprisonment, torture, organ harvesting, etc.), which anti-FLG editors routinely remove. [1]

2. I'll agree that the anti- bunch have gone too far the other way, as I think there is valid material for at least reporting claims of CCP abuses, torture, organ harvesting, etc., that the anti- group removes. [2]

Since you were referring only to the dispute over the organ harvesting material, it is correct to say that these statements are misleading. They also damage the image of anti-FG editors. Anyone who reads these statements would come away thinking that anti-FG editors have behaved as bad as FGers, or worse, they might even be working for the Chinese government.

Frankly, I was somewhat offended when I saw the first statement. I have to contact you now because the arbitration case is accepted and these statements might mislead the arbitrators. Could you remove or correct them by qualifying them? Thanks--Samuel Luo 06:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Star, I have always respected you, your neutral edits and your articulate comments on talk pages have left me with a good impression. I know anti-FG editors, including myself, have been zealous in our opposition against POV pushing FGers, and some of us did engage in wholesale back and forth reversions with FGers. However, these edit conflicts were mostly over Li’s statements and teachings that FGers prefer to conceal. If your sweeping statements were about these back and forth reversions I would have nothing to object to. I feel a strong need to write to you because your two statements, as explained above, are inaccurate and leave wrong impressions for anti-FG editors. I am sorry to hear that you don’t feel the need to retract or modify these statements. Normally, I would not continue pressing on the issue, however because these statements unfairly portrays us in a very negative light I have no choice but to write you again.

Your statements imply that anti-FG editors have an agenda to push and that they are apologists for the Chinese govt. I am sure you know how unpopular that is in the West. These statements are inaccurate because anti-FG editors have not routinely removed “well-documented material that seems critical of the Chinese govt. and its suppression of the movement.” Even you yourself admit that you made your statements based on the content dispute of the organ harvesting section on the Suppression of Falun Gong page a few months ago, alone. In other words anti-FG editors have not routinely removed material that is critical of the Chinese govt, as such material has always been included on multiple pages. Further more, in that dispute over the content on the organ harvesting section, anti-FG editors only reduced material from FG affiliated organizations and that of David Kilgour’s report. Such material was never entirely removed, the record will show that.

I am not trying to force a point of view on you, I just feel that I am being wrongfully accused of doing something that I did not do and I believe you should know that. I am sure other editors who are being categorized as anti-FG editors feel the same way. I am writing to you because you are someone who can be reasoned with. Hopefully you can be sensitive about our feelings and kindly retract or modify your statements. Best, --Samuel Luo 02:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your comment

I read the article that you suggested. I have a question. If an admin doesn't understand a basic rule like WP:ATT, what options do I have left. I have been trying to talk for more than 2 weeks with the editor to no avail. He suggested RfC so I am starting it. To show what effort I have made so far

Lots of editors (including me) talked with Dab regarding this article [[3]] and [[4]]. This whole article is OR and did not provide any citation, till I got involved. All the arguments being presented in the article or the name of article can not be sourced to any verifiable source.

I have asked for citation since Feb 13, none provided so far. If I put OR tag or fact tag on controversial statement, it is removed without providing any citation. On talk page he provides arguments without providing citation as to who as presented this argument in which publication.

The citation that are provided turn out to say something different than what Dab quotes in the article [[5]]. When I correct the text based on the same citation that he provided, while quoting text from citation [[6]] and [[7]]. He starts edit warring and then blames me for it. Please see comments from other admin re his block [[8]].

I have tried good faith, but how long can I clap with one hand. Any advice you can provide will be appreciated.Sbhushan 14:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the RfC was deleted, when I was going to save it. So should I start again, OR can the RfC be opened again. ThanksSbhushan 15:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC has meet the requriement of two-person threshold, but is still not listed as an approved case at [[9]]. Is there something that I have to do? I want to make sure that the case doesn't get dropped out because of technicality. And I am not sure who I can ask this question. Thanks.Sbhushan 14:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 00:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}[reply]

Revertion in list of stars by constellations and constellation articles

I seen that you removed three stars with planets from the list of stars by constellation articles. Did you know that three more planets were discovered around these three stars. The list of stars by constellation articles should contain all stars that has known planets, even if these planets were discovered the most recently. Please do not remove these stars from the list anymore.

In constellation articles, you reverted by changing the datas in constellation box back where it was. In editing site, you removed 'bf' from between 'number' and 'star' that was attached together. 'bf' stands for bayer-flamsteed. Number of stars means number of bayer-flamsteed stars. I added 'bf' in between 'number' and 'stars' attached together because I should make it more knownly and in main article, instead of saying 'Number of stars', it says 'Bayer/Flamsteed stars'. In editing site, if you remove 'bf' from between 'number' and 'stars', then there is no data or data is blanked or no number under or next to Bayer/Flamsteed stars. Please don't revert edit anymore, but you could revert edits back to last version by Cosmium. Cosmium 18:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]